Topics

How simultaneous contrast tricks even experts


Dan Margulis
 

Here is one of the lessons to pick up from Chevreul.

On Feb 5, 2020, at 6:14 PM, adriano esteves <adriano@...> wrote:

Curious to understand why you decided to print the cover on HP Indigo digital offset,

The choice of press to print the cover doesn’t have much to do with its brand name. It is more a question of page size in combination with length of run. If we were printing 25,000 copies, say, they wouldn’t print it on an Indigo, they’d choose a larger press so they could print the covers four-up or whatever would fit on a form. Since we didn’t need that many, the choice is a press that can accommodate the eize of the cover comfortably.

They told me that it has now become fashionable to print books that are extremely wide. My full cover, including spine and bleeds, is around 50 cm in width.  Some of these other books I’m talking about are almost twice that width. For that reason, the printer has a Xeikon roll-fed digital press, since such a cover won’t fit on the Indigo.

the final result colour range is incredible BTW, would it be less impressive on offset?

Granted the same stock, no, it should be about the same. But it brings up a major point about Chevreul’s ideas.

Adriano is not the only one who used the word “incredible” about the intensity of the cover colors. Several members of the printing staff said approximately the same thing—they had never seen anybody else get color this exciting off the Indigo, and I must be some kind of magician. (“Yes,” I replied, “and handsome, intelligent, witty, and modest as well,” but they were not interested in these factors, preferring to ask me how I had gotten the brilliant blues at upper left and the fiery oranges at lower right.

Well, look again. Imagine that the entire front cover were the same blue as in the upper left. Nothing startling at all. I have half a dozen covers of that color on my shelves. Same way with the oranges. But when complementaries like this are directly across from one another, and separated as here by white, Chevreul says they will both look more intense than if either were seen separately. (It can’t be seen as well in this message, because you’re looking at a white background as well as a colorful cover, rather than as an individual book; this creates a different, less desirable simultaneous-contrast effect.)

How good is that trick? Well, you might expect it to fool the uninitiated, but here it’s fooling Adriano and the printing staff, all of whom are professional graphic artists. And you needn’t take my word for it. Here is Vincent van Gogh, a big student of Chevreul, writing to his brother in 1885, text in the original French (!! Sorry, Gerald) and English at

If one combines two of the primary colours — yellow and red, for example, in order to create a binary colour, orange, this binary colour will attain its maximum brilliance when one places it close to the third primary colour, not used in the mixture. Similarly, if one combines red and blue to produce violet — that binary colour — the violet will be heightened by the immediate proximity of yellow. Lastly, if one combines yellow and blue to form green, this green will be heightened by the immediate proximity of red. Each of the three primary colours is rightly called Complementary in relation to the binary colour that corresponds with it. Thus blue is the complementary of orange, yellow is the complementary of violet, and red the complementary of green. Vice versa, each of the composite colours is the complementary of the primary colour not used in the mixture. This reciprocal heightening is what’s called the law of simultaneous contrast.

If the complementary colours are taken at equal value, that’s to say, at the same degree of brightness and light, their juxtaposition will raise both the one and the other to an intensity so violent that human eyes will scarcely be able to bear to look at it. 

Dan Margulis


Gerald Bakker
 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 02:11 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:
How good is that trick? Well, you might expect it to fool the uninitiated, but here it’s fooling Adriano and the printing staff, all of whom are professional graphic artists. And you needn’t take my word for it. Here is Vincent van Gogh, a big student of Chevreul, writing to his brother in 1885, text in the original French (!! Sorry, Gerald) and English at

Well, when I click the button "original text" on that web page, I clearly read Dutch text. Also, the two first pages of the facsimile are in Dutch, so it's not google translate at work. In 1885 Vincent still lived in the Dutch village Nuenen, not yet in France. And why would the two brothers not use their mother language when writing to each other?

From page 3 the text indeed switches to French. According to the notes, this is a copy from a text by Charles Blanc ("Les artistes de mon temps"), so supposedly not Vincent's own words. Of course, it's amazing that Vincent van Gogh brings these ideas (clearly Chevreul's) with so much emphasis under his brother's attention. 
--
Gerald Bakker
http://geraldbakker.nl


Dan Margulis
 


On Feb 6, 2020, at 9:42 AM, Gerald Bakker <gc.bakker@...> wrote:

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 02:11 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:
How good is that trick? Well, you might expect it to fool the uninitiated, but here it’s fooling Adriano and the printing staff, all of whom are professional graphic artists. And you needn’t take my word for it. Here is Vincent van Gogh, a big student of Chevreul, writing to his brother in 1885, text in the original French (!! Sorry, Gerald) and English at

Well, when I click the button "original text" on that web page, I clearly read Dutch text. Also, the two first pages of the facsimile are in Dutch, so it's not google translate at work. In 1885 Vincent still lived in the Dutch village Nuenen, not yet in France. And why would the two brothers not use their mother language when writing to each other?

From page 3 the text indeed switches to French. According to the notes, this is a copy from a text by Charles Blanc ("Les artistes de mon temps"), so supposedly not Vincent's own words. Of course, it's amazing that Vincent van Gogh brings these ideas (clearly Chevreul's) with so much emphasis under his brother's attention. 

I don’t claim much expertise in French but Blanc’s prose is effortlessly smooth compared to the labored phrasing in Vincent’s own French. I myself was surprised to learn early on that much of the extensive correspondence between the brothers was in French, considering, as you say, that their native tongue was Dutch. (They also occasionally wrote to each other in English.)

For interesting speculation on why they weren’t using their mother language,

Below are some pertinent paragraphs.
Dan Margulis

Vincent studied French in his teens and spent several years in Francophone regions of Belgium (Borinage and Brussels) before relocating to Paris, where he lived for two years before moving to Arles. Theo had been in Paris several years as well, so French wasn’t a novelty when their letters abruptly transitioned to that language. (When they were together they probably spoke Dutch, French, and a mixture of the two.)

Arles was where van Gogh took on French as his own language, and it was where his work exploded. He wrote Theo en français just after disembarking from the train; his brother replied in kind, and the seed was set. Vincent wrote more than 200 letters from Arles; the shortest was six pages. Many have embedded drawings, studies of works in progress — a continuation of the visual exploration of reality that dominated his daylight hours. The correspondence details Vincent’s creative process, the weather and wind, the wine and sunlight, his interactions with people around town — all things that were foreign, strange, and stimulating.

Recent studies in the neurolinguistics of multiple languages are remarkable when we apply them to van Gogh in Arles. In what has been called the “neural signature” of multilingualism, van Gogh would probably have had higher oxygen levels in certain parts of the brain and electrical activity in different lobes when using French. This translingual condition has been shown to influence higher cognitive functions like attention span, multitasking skills, and depth of concentration. These new ways of organizing his world in language had ties to what we see on his canvas: As writing and painting record philosophies, emotions, and the patterns through which we make sense of the world, in Arles we are seeing the French of van Gogh’s mind in colors and brushstrokes.



Laurentiu Todie
 

The colors are beautiful, but I’d like to know if the hard line in the blue and the lack or detail in the red serve a purpose.
Thank you!

On Feb 6, 2020, at 5:11 AM, Dan Margulis via Groups.Io <dmargulis@...> wrote:

Here is one of the lessons to pick up from Chevreul.

On Feb 5, 2020, at 6:14 PM, adriano esteves <adriano@...> wrote:

Curious to understand why you decided to print the cover on HP Indigo digital offset,

The choice of press to print the cover doesn’t have much to do with its brand name. It is more a question of page size in combination with length of run. If we were printing 25,000 copies, say, they wouldn’t print it on an Indigo, they’d choose a larger press so they could print the covers four-up or whatever would fit on a form. Since we didn’t need that many, the choice is a press that can accommodate the eize of the cover comfortably.

They told me that it has now become fashionable to print books that are extremely wide. My full cover, including spine and bleeds, is around 50 cm in width.  Some of these other books I’m talking about are almost twice that width. For that reason, the printer has a Xeikon roll-fed digital press, since such a cover won’t fit on the Indigo.

the final result colour range is incredible BTW, would it be less impressive on offset?

Granted the same stock, no, it should be about the same. But it brings up a major point about Chevreul’s ideas.

Adriano is not the only one who used the word “incredible” about the intensity of the cover colors. Several members of the printing staff said approximately the same thing—they had never seen anybody else get color this exciting off the Indigo, and I must be some kind of magician. (“Yes,” I replied, “and handsome, intelligent, witty, and modest as well,” but they were not interested in these factors, preferring to ask me how I had gotten the brilliant blues at upper left and the fiery oranges at lower right.

Well, look again. Imagine that the entire front cover were the same blue as in the upper left. Nothing startling at all. I have half a dozen covers of that color on my shelves. Same way with the oranges. But when complementaries like this are directly across from one another, and separated as here by white, Chevreul says they will both look more intense than if either were seen separately. (It can’t be seen as well in this message, because you’re looking at a white background as well as a colorful cover, rather than as an individual book; this creates a different, less desirable simultaneous-contrast effect.)

How good is that trick? Well, you might expect it to fool the uninitiated, but here it’s fooling Adriano and the printing staff, all of whom are professional graphic artists. And you needn’t take my word for it. Here is Vincent van Gogh, a big student of Chevreul, writing to his brother in 1885, text in the original French (!! Sorry, Gerald) and English at

If one combines two of the primary colours — yellow and red, for example, in order to create a binary colour, orange, this binary colour will attain its maximum brilliance when one places it close to the third primary colour, not used in the mixture. Similarly, if one combines red and blue to produce violet — that binary colour — the violet will be heightened by the immediate proximity of yellow. Lastly, if one combines yellow and blue to form green, this green will be heightened by the immediate proximity of red. Each of the three primary colours is rightly called Complementary in relation to the binary colour that corresponds with it. Thus blue is the complementary of orange, yellow is the complementary of violet, and red the complementary of green. Vice versa, each of the composite colours is the complementary of the primary colour not used in the mixture. This reciprocal heightening is what’s called the law of simultaneous contrast.

If the complementary colours are taken at equal value, that’s to say, at the same degree of brightness and light, their juxtaposition will raise both the one and the other to an intensity so violent that human eyes will scarcely be able to bear to look at it. 

Dan Margulis
<Chevreul cover front rgb med 120519.jpg>

Laurentiu Todie
DIGITALIS.ART




jorgeparraphotography
 

Hi Dan and Gang. I also noticed your use of yet another of Chevreul's trick, which I find so useful from the old book, which is to add some hint of the same colour to neighbouring whites, and that in itself reinforces the colour.

There is no actual White in the cover and as a matter of fact, every colour gets into the white area in the centre of the image, so each and every colour is getting the extra reinforcement. The same can be done with Black and I guess, Grey too.

No doubt, those are the kind of colour combinations. that, when applied properly, may explain the amazing saturation achieved by painters like Van Goh and others, but to me, what is REALLY stuck in my mind is how the Impressionists managed
to define shapes, just based on the simultaneous contrast of their colour palettes,  to the point that you can only see dots if you get too near one such painting, and when backing off then shapes begin to appear. I always had the idea that it was more of a play with light shades, but obviously, that never gave me a satisfactory explanation. Now I get it.

Dan, maybe I am wrong, but I have the gut feeling that we may end up playing more with the Adobe Color Wheel ( formerly Kuhler tool) now that we will begin to understand the implications of choosing specific colour combinations for our images. 

BTW, if you check their website ( color.adobe.com) they are just announcing "surprising" color themes, based on the "New" Color Rules offered by Adobe. Don't know what they mean, but regardless,  the Adobe Capture app for smartphones may become our new best friend!

Best 


Jorge Parra


jorgeparraphotography
 


 I must be some kind of magician. (“Yes,” I replied, “and handsome, intelligent, witty, and modest as well,” but they were not interested in these factors, preferring to ask me how I had gotten the brilliant blues at upper left and the fiery oranges at lower right

The Hollywood movie industry has used and abused the play with complementary colors for many many years and it is looking almost boring these days.
 Some people call it the “Teal and Orange” syndrome, easy to spot in this youtube clip. 


It is interesting to notice that some other cinematographers, and I must include the contemporary Russian filmmakers, are moving away from this trend and working on new and amazing color palettes that look way much better than this classic clash between orange and blue. 

There is a Netflix russian series called “Better than Us” that I invite the curious to take a look at, and enjoy a totally different look in the color range of the images, in total contradiction to the Hollywood boring  trend these days. 

Jorge Parra Photography
Ph: 786-222-9405
www.JorgeParraPhotography.com


Dan Margulis
 


On Feb 7, 2020, at 7:41 AM, jorgeparraphotography <jorgeparraphotography@...> wrote:


No doubt, those are the kind of colour combinations. that, when applied properly, may explain the amazing saturation achieved by painters like Van Goh and others, but to me, what is REALLY stuck in my mind is how the Impressionists managed
to define shapes, just based on the simultaneous contrast of their colour palettes,  to the point that you can only see dots if you get too near one such painting, and when backing off then shapes begin to appear.

There are two variants in the above but AFAIK the first of them, Pointillism, doesn’t have much application to correction of photography. Its idea is that when a subtle color is desired, rather than mixing a special paint of that color, we alternate splashes of the dominant color, much more saturated than what is wanted, with fewer and/or smaller splashes of its complementary. From a great distance a viewer might perceive a single dull color, but at a typical distance the effect is more interesting. Photoshop has a Pointillist filter that kind of gives the idea but it is very wooden compared to what a thinking painter can achieve. I have played with it as an anti-moire, anti-banding measure but wasn’t satisfied with the results.

The more pertinent case: certain objects are so identifiable by their color that we can identify them even without their shape. The usual case is flowers at a distance. The camera does not resolve indivicual petals. We know that we are looking at flowers because, given their color, they can’t be anything else. Monet took advantage of this; he reasoned that if the color were strong enough he could just put daubs of paint where the flowers were and nobody would object.

I showed an example of a photograph of distant flowers where I actually sabotaged detail, imitating Monet. It didn’t look bad but I’m not sure I’ll repeat the experiment. However there is a clear lesson: in distant flowers or anything else where the viewer can identify the object by its color only and not its shape, be sure that the colors are strong even if you have to paint extra color in.

I always had the idea that it was more of a play with light shades, but obviously, that never gave me a satisfactory explanation. Now I get it.

This happens a lot with Chevreul, I’m here to tell you. Suddenly the light comes on, and I slap myself and wonder how I can possibly have been so stupid as not to realize it earlier.

Dan, maybe I am wrong, but I have the gut feeling that we may end up playing more with the Adobe Color Wheel ( formerly Kuhler tool) now that we will begin to understand the implications of choosing specific colour combinations for our images. 

In principle we shouldn’t need a crutch. We often need to find a certain color’s complementary. We can always go into the Color Picker and invert the LAB values, thus finding out the *true* complementary. Realistically, though, anything close to that complementary should be suitable, and we should be able to take a good guess.

BTW, if you check their website ( color.adobe.com) they are just announcing "surprising" color themes, based on the "New" Color Rules offered by Adobe. Don't know what they mean, but regardless,  the Adobe Capture app for smartphones may become our new best friend!

Possibly they are students of Chevreul because they start off with two phrases that are very typical of him and not that common elsewhere: the “harmonies of color” and specifically “harmonies of analogy”.

Dan Margulis


jorgeparraphotography
 

THanks for the reply Dan.  I have a question that I have had in my head for some time and I think this could be the right moment to ask, in reference to the terminology of color you are going to use, in contrast to what others are using in the market.

Very simple observation here: how everyone is using -randomly IMHO- the terms, Hue, Shade, Tone and Tint.

And then I found this text on the web which -again- made it all more mixed up, starting with a color wheel that takes Yellow as a Primary color...

https://digitalsynopsis.com/design/color-meanings-theory-psychology/

In this discussion about the psychology of color, the different colors in a wheel are explained as follows:

The Hue  is the brightest or purest form of a color. These are the outermost colors in the color wheel.
The Tint is the Hue mixed with White
The tone is the Hue mixed with Grey
The Shade is the Hue mixed with Black

There is also this mention about Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Colors, that I rarely hear in discussions. Are those definitions in use these days?? Note: Green is, according to this text, a secondary color.

Also, as a photographer, there is always the discussion about a "Blue Hue or Blue Tint or Blue shade in the shadows of a scene with a bright sun and clear sky, that needs correction, and then it follows: what is the right term here where the  physical case is that of color pollution or contamination via bounce, as it can happen with a sunlit red or yellow wall or green grass near a subject?

So my question is, how do you intend to use these terms? I feel there has to be a way for us all to be talking about the same thing when referring to shades or tones or tints, and the literature and the endless discussions on colors online have a very very "liberal" way to use them at random. I read in your book the term Tonal Range, which seems to have a clear definition, but what about the other terms?

The psychological connections between colors, emotions, feelings, states of mind, etc are definitely interesting!

Thanks!!

Jorge Parra


Dan Margulis
 


On Feb 18, 2020, at 6:42 AM, jorgeparraphotography <jorgeparraphotography@...> wrote:

THanks for the reply Dan.  I have a question that I have had in my head for some time and I think this could be the right moment to ask, in reference to the terminology of color you are going to use, in contrast to what others are using in the market.

Very simple observation here: how everyone is using -randomly IMHO- the terms, Hue, Shade, Tone and Tint.

You are not exactly the first one to complain about this. In §146, Chevreul noted that even dictionaries sometimes contradict themselves as to the meaning of graphic arts terms, and added that certain words "constantly recur in the everyday language of artists describing colors. They are not so well defined, however, that when uttering one we can be sure that it will be understood perfectly by whoever hears it.”

Just as true today, probably more so since we have to have discussions with people who are not experts in the field and who are likely to think that hue and color are synonyms. And, as I point out in Chapter 16, the terms lightness, brightness, luminosity, luminous efficiency, tonality, and value may have slightly different meanings depending upon which expert is expounding upon them, but in real-world conversations they tend to mean the same thing.

And then I found this text on the web which -again- made it all more mixed up, starting with a color wheel that takes Yellow as a Primary color…

Historically the three primaries are red, yellow, and blue. Today, we say RGB, but the two are not that different. The “green” that monitor phosphors produce is quite yellowish.

https://digitalsynopsis.com/design/color-meanings-theory-psychology/

In this discussion about the psychology of color, the different colors in a wheel are explained as follows:

The Hue is the brightest or purest form of a color. These are the outermost colors in the color wheel.
The Tint is the Hue mixed with White
The tone is the Hue mixed with Grey
The Shade is the Hue mixed with Black

Well, I don’t agree with these definitions, but can hardly stop others from using them.

There is also this mention about Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Colors, that I rarely hear in discussions. Are those definitions in use these days?? Note: Green is, according to this text, a secondary color.

It is in Alexander Theroux’s book The Secondary Colors as well. I think the phrase secondary colors is still in common use today although the specific meaning isn’t agreed upon. We tend to say that the secondaries are cyan, magenta, and yellow, but Theroux says they are green, purple, and orange.

I don’t think that tertiary or ternary colors are commonly used phrases today.

Also, as a photographer, there is always the discussion about a "Blue Hue or Blue Tint or Blue shade in the shadows of a scene with a bright sun and clear sky, that needs correction, and then it follows: what is the right term here where the  physical case is that of color pollution or contamination via bounce, as it can happen with a sunlit red or yellow wall or green grass near a subject?

So my question is, how do you intend to use these terms? I feel there has to be a way for us all to be talking about the same thing when referring to shades or tones or tints, and the literature and the endless discussions on colors online have a very very "liberal" way to use them at random. I read in your book the term Tonal Range, which seems to have a clear definition, but what about the other terms?

The discussion of photography and other art forms is necessarily poetic. It should not be confused with color science, which necessarily needs more precision. For example, Chevreul predicts that two neighboring colors will be perceived as being different from when either is viewed in isolation, and specifically that there will appear to be a change both in tonality and hue. Thus, according to him, a lighter color placed next to a darker blue will itself seem lighter and yellower. I criticize this, saying that the shift toward lightness is always there but that the hue shift depends to some extent on the original color. To understand my comment one must grasp my meaning of hue.

When talking to someone else about their work, such precision isn’t usually needed and is often undesirable. Why say “this appears to be lacking in tonality contrast in the quartertone range” when you can say “it needs more punch!”

Besides, even if one has a basic understanding of the terms it’s easy to get confused. For example, mix equal parts of yellow and of black paint. Does the hue of the yellow change? Not according to theory. And yet this color is always known as “Charleston Green” which strongly suggests that most people do perceive a hue shift.

Dan Margulis


Michael Jahn
 

Hi Dan and others ...

- not as a photographer or retoucher, but as an illustrator and a painter - I have ALWAYS held this to be true;

In this discussion about the psychology of color, the different colors in a wheel are explained as follows:

The Hue is the brightest or purest form of a color. These are the outermost colors in the color wheel.
The Tint is the Hue mixed with White
The tone is the Hue mixed with Grey
The Shade is the Hue mixed with Black
I will share this link to support this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tints_and_shades 

 
Respectfully,

Michael Jahn
2718 Cimmaron Ave
Simi Valley, CA 93065

805 416 6946


Paco Rosso
 

I totally disagree with this.

The outermost color in the wheel is the saturation, not the hue. The hue is the (angular) position of the color. The mix with a neutral color (call this "white", "grey" or "black") produce a desaturation. The "value" is the brightness of the color. ..

El vie., 21 feb. 2020 22:24, Michael Jahn <michaelejahn@...> escribió:
Hi Dan and others ...

- not as a photographer or retoucher, but as an illustrator and a painter - I have ALWAYS held this to be true;

In this discussion about the psychology of color, the different colors in a wheel are explained as follows:

The Hue is the brightest or purest form of a color. These are the outermost colors in the color wheel.
The Tint is the Hue mixed with White
The tone is the Hue mixed with Grey
The Shade is the Hue mixed with Black
I will share this link to support this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tints_and_shades 

 
Respectfully,

Michael Jahn
2718 Cimmaron Ave
Simi Valley, CA 93065

805 416 6946


Michael Jahn
 

Hi Paco,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tints_and_shades#/media/File:HSLSphere.svg 

Perhaps we are speaking about similar things differently ?

 
Respectfully,

Michael Jahn
2718 Cimmaron Ave
Simi Valley, CA 93065

805 416 6946


On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:06 PM Paco Rosso <pacorosso@...> wrote:
I totally disagree with this.

The outermost color in the wheel is the saturation, not the hue. The hue is the (angular) position of the color. The mix with a neutral color (call this "white", "grey" or "black") produce a desaturation. The "value" is the brightness of the color. ..

Respectfully,

Michael Jahn
2718 Cimmaron Ave
Simi Valley, CA 93065

805 416 6946


Paco Rosso
 

Maybe.
The same words in diferent industries have diferent meanings. And this make a problem when two persons, from different industries talk about the same topic with the same words. It is like to talk different idioms with the same words. 


El sáb., 22 feb. 2020 0:10, Michael Jahn <michaelejahn@...> escribió:
Hi Paco,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tints_and_shades#/media/File:HSLSphere.svg 

Perhaps we are speaking about similar things differently ?

 
Respectfully,

Michael Jahn
2718 Cimmaron Ave
Simi Valley, CA 93065

805 416 6946


On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:06 PM Paco Rosso <pacorosso@...> wrote:
I totally disagree with this.

The outermost color in the wheel is the saturation, not the hue. The hue is the (angular) position of the color. The mix with a neutral color (call this "white", "grey" or "black") produce a desaturation. The "value" is the brightness of the color. ..

Respectfully,

Michael Jahn
2718 Cimmaron Ave
Simi Valley, CA 93065

805 416 6946


Hector Davila
 

Even within this email list [colortheory] I get confused with the different language I see. For example, reading
Dan Margulis book I learned the PPW.

Now, the PPW I learned is about taking a picture from start to finish using PPW (around 9 or ten steps).

But others here mentioned PPW, and I discovered a little late they are talking about PPW The Panel. (not PPW the step by step method)

And also, Dan Margulis use of the word "contrast" is different than I'm used to using and understanding.

Hector Davila

On 2/22/2020 1:03 AM, Paco Rosso wrote:
Maybe.
The same words in diferent industries have diferent meanings. And this make a problem when two persons, from different industries talk about the same topic with the same words. It is like to talk different idioms with the same words.


Alec Dann
 

Michael,

I think the confusion arises from your using terms that refer to mixing paint.  If you check the Wikipedia page you linked to, you'll see the illustration on the right describes your usage as "Painter's Color Mixing Terminology."

The color terminology in this forum references the color appearance model published by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) and which Photoshop is based on.  You can learn more about that here.

 


Michael Jahn
 

Hi Alec,

No confusion. I have wired for Pantone and a color scientist.

I am also a software developer type who has worked for projects for solutions for photographers and image manipulators.

in my comment, i preferenced it with "  not as a photographer or retoucher, but as an illustrator and a painter - "

( my degree is in medical illustration )

So, yes - " Painter's Color Mixing Terminology"

probably makes perfect sense to anyone who has mixed paint.

probably makes little sense to someone who began imaging with Photoshop.

I am 64.

hope that helps why i made my comment.

Respectfully,

Michael Jahn
2718 Cimmaron Ave
Simi Valley, CA 93065

805 416 6946




StoryinPictures
 


I think the confusion arises from folks not realizing that color is discussed in different ways by different groups of people. 

Jorge Parra posted a link where terms were used in a way I recognize because I know people who have studied fine art and who paint.  Jorge raised some interesting questions by doing this. 

Michael mentioned his familiarity with the terminology. His comments were helpful—they explained that there was value, in the context of his experience, to use the terminology this way. 

When we read books from the past or from different fields of study, the first task is to understand how they use their key terminology. 

The failure to realize that key terms are being used in a way that is different from what we are used to can cause confusion or misunderstanding. 

My education was based in reading some the original sources in science, philosophy, religion, history, literature, mathematics, etc.  When you do this, you realize that even people who knew each other in the same field used words differently.  For example,  Aristotle was a student of Plato in Philosophy, yet we find them using terms differently.

 It only grows worse as we cross lines of disciplines and decades or centuries.  :)

The way painter talk about color serves a purpose and is, in my opinion, well worth learning so we can understand their conversations and insights.  Painters, after all, have centuries of experience discussing these topics. Those of us working with color on computers are still in our first century of dealing with these topics. :)

Derick Miller


On Feb 22, 2020, at 16:42, Alec Dann via Groups.Io <alec.dann@...> wrote:

Michael,

I think the confusion arises from your using terms that refer to mixing paint.  If you check the Wikipedia page you linked to, you'll see the illustration on the right describes your usage as "Painter's Color Mixing Terminology."

The color terminology in this forum references the color appearance model published by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) and which Photoshop is based on.  You can learn more about that here.

 


Henry Davis
 

I’m with you Michael. I live in three worlds - painting, photography and Photoshop. I’ve always tried to remember that I’m in a constant state of translation when I discussing color.

When Dan took on this new book project I said to myself, “oh my”, figuring this would open the biggest can of color worms yet regarding terminology.

Henry Davis

On Feb 22, 2020, at 8:09 PM, Michael Jahn <michaelejahn@gmail.com> wrote:
<Snip>

probably makes perfect sense to anyone who has mixed paint.

probably makes little sense to someone who began imaging with Photoshop.


Dan Margulis
 


On Feb 23, 2020, at 10:45 AM, StoryinPictures <Pilatessprings@...> wrote:

My education was based in reading some the original sources in science, philosophy, religion, history, literature, mathematics, etc.  When you do this, you realize that even people who knew each other in the same field used words differently.  For example,  Aristotle was a student of Plato in Philosophy, yet we find them using terms differently.

 It only grows worse as we cross lines of disciplines and decades or centuries.  :)

The way painter talk about color serves a purpose and is, in my opinion, well worth learning so we can understand their conversations and insights.  Painters, after all, have centuries of experience discussing these topics. Those of us working with color on computers are still in our first century of dealing with these topics. :)

Derick Miller

Here is a challenge that may let us see how we are using terms, if enough people will comment, with help from me, Chevreul, Tom, and Michelangelo.

*My contribution: I already have pointed out how Chevreul himself complained about ambiguity of terms, and that even today there are terms with multiple meanings. One of them is chiaroscuro, which you would think would be unambiguous enough, yet has at least two accepted meanings today. And I had to point out repeatedly that when Chevreul used the term it didn’t mean what I usually think it means.

*His: §343 "In painting a realistic human figure, the basic colors of flesh, eyes, and hair are dictated by the person being portrayed; but the painter can make his own choices for the clothing, ornaments, and background.”

*Tom’s: he pointed out that a certain painting of the prophet Isaiah featured lavish use of complementaries, and I responded that I had considered use of that same painting in the book.

*Michelangelo’s: he painted it, cost and time being no object.

Below are two versions of Michelangelo’s work, taken from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. One is the original work. The other, as I described to Tom, assumes that skin, hair, and eyes are dictated by the subject and cannot change. Also, I judge that the Bible should not change. But everything else is given the complementary hue to what Michelangelo chose.

The challenge: please explain in understandable terms, which version you prefer, AND WHY.


Michael Colby
 

In the words of Socrates, " I drank what?!"  :-)