|Color and Light||1.1||Do Assignment|
|Color and Light||1.2||Do Assignment||1.3 | 1.4|
|Illusion of Space and Atmosphere||1||Do Assignment|
|Personal Art||1.1||Do Assignment|
ok. so i dont do digital painting. i tried once and failed. so i've decided to learn about all these things that not only effect digital painting but every kind of pretty picture making.
here's my effort for the circles one.
obv not that good values. mebbe shouldnt have used blue.
crits would be welcome.
this is a top reference thread btw.
Great thread, nice to have some thought bent this way. I’m pretty late in to the thread and new to CA, but I’d like to add some thoughts.
Really good to see Briggsy here too. I regretted not being able to attend one of your colour theory courses a few years back, but work gets in the way of fun things like that. The anatomy and life drawing lessons were ace and I’m still working at it.
As I said, there are a few things I’d like to put out there for some more thought.
RGB vs HLS, RYB, HSV, CMY. It’s a few different ways of going about the same thing. RGB or primary colours of light make the most sense to me, as you don’t see it if not lit. Also your computer and the programs on it work in RGB, this is what most programs use at their core, so being able to think in that space will help with getting what you want form the software. The example where Idiot Apathy blended Cyan to Red, if you look at them on individual colour channels (RGB) Your see on R left to right a black to white ramp, and on both the G and B a left to right white to black. All of which 50% in the middle.
CMY I find sits well next as a secondarys to RGB. As in to make them in RGB (additive), C is equal parts GB, M equal parts RB, and Y equal parts RG. If you think of CMY as individually letting through primary colours of light you can see why printing uses CMYK, as it makes it easer to mix RGB s with printed CMYK you subtract RGB.
Intensity is interesting, the 0-255 values in photoshop painter and so on are just a product of them being in 8 bit, a bit is either a 1 or a 0 giving 2 states, 8 bits is 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2 = 256 different states. This also means you only get 256 shades in a gray scale black to white ramp, you can get around this with some colour variation. You get a more steps if using 10, 12, 16 bit, or a float. Which leads to exposure, and something that may be worth a look at is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HDRI-Example.jpg it’s a high dynamic range image, made by taking many photos of the same thing with different exposure. While you can not view the full dynamic range the resulting single image allows you to move up and down through the stops, and store information that would be clipped to black or white.
The interesting thing about this picture is that while the windows are blown out in the over exposed picture, the under exposed picture shows you the colour detail. In the paintings of the spheres the question of colour in the speccular highlight was asked, and I think this may help suggest that there is colour in there, but the intensity of it or the value is high enough that the colour is visibly lost and becomes white. The point at which that becomes white has to do with how your eyes are adjusted as much as how intense the light source is.
Reflected light, and absorbing light is also interesting. There has been some comment on pure red absorbing (or not reflecting) green and blue, which is true, but for it to be pure red, and perfectly illuminated is a tall order. Another factor on this is the intensity of the light, how reflective the surface is and how acute the angle of incidence. So at the edges of a sphere you will tend to see more reflected, and sharper reflections, and an intense highlight which may not appear red.
How these things are viewed plays a big part too, if you’re literally looking at the subject you’re seeing it as the light resolves to form an image on your retina, you’re eye adjusts to the luminance and hues of your environment. If you’re taking photos you adjust for the exposure you want. Doing this when attempting to paint is what destroys me, it doesn’t really work the same way, and trying to normalize this tends to be beyond my skills. I wonder at the colours you see in shadow, or even just general tinting to things, I assume much of it to be reflected/bounced light, but I also wonder how much of it is your eyes adjusting for colour. Such as in this optical illusion http://www.johnsadowski.com/big_spanish_castle.html . I love seeing complimentary colours played up like that to give the impression of more intense colour, and a range that is not really available in pigment.
Ho hum, bit of a rant. This is my first post to CA, I hope I’m able to add something of value as this thread has been a big help to me.
Should I ever end up living in Sydney again I’ll have to come back in to Ashton’s for some colour learning, well, and because I need more life drawing practice, which on a side, can any one recommend a good place in London, something akin to the evening and weekend classes at Ashton’s would be great.
Always good to hear from a satisfied customer, Mr Bunyin! (Miss? Sir? - keep sending me clues, I'll work it out). The specular reflection itself does not just look white because it's very bright, if that's what you are suggesting. The specular reflection itself on most objects is whatever the colour the light source is: if the light source is orange, it's orange, if white, white. But you are right in one sense - the light coming to our eyes from the highlight is actually an additive mixture of this specular reflection and the underlying diffuse reflection, which may well be coloured (red in my jaffa, for example). On shiny coloured objects this coloured diffuse reflection is normally completely swamped at the highlight by the concentrated specular reflection.Originally Posted by frumpy_bunyinIn the paintings of the spheres the question of colour in the speccular highlight was asked, and I think this may help suggest that there is colour in there, but the intensity of it or the value is high enough that the colour is visibly lost and becomes white. The point at which that becomes white has to do with how your eyes are adjusted as much as how intense the light source is.
I've been reading through this great thread (thank you Idiot )
For a while now, and finally, after gathering enough guts I decided to join in myself since I could use the exercise.
Altho before I'm going to start doing anything I'd like to clear one thing. I'm not familiar with the term "Saturated Color", and I'll really appreciate it if anyone could explain this to me or show me an example (after all, a picture's worth a thousand words).
Thanks for your time, The Editor.
Lets try this
Saturation is the amount of pigment in a medium - i.e. the amount of color.
Lightness is also called brightness or value. It is a scale from black to white.
Hue is what color something is minus saturation and value. This image showes the hue red with saturation and lightness at various levels. Notice that black (and white) remain the same regardless of hue or saturation.
[Always remember that if a topic seems uninteresting, then it's just because you are picturing a solution that lacks vigor.] - William b. Hand
Nice kitsu, good job!
I think perhaps your wording for hue may be a little bit confusing: you will have hue at any value or saturation, except of course black and white.
Saturation is in fact completely linked with hue - if you have one you have the other, no way around that. No hue, no saturation = greyscale.
I think it may be helpful to break color down and figure out each of these individual parts down when you are trying to paint something. Tackle them one at a time rather than all at once you know?
- - - - - -
Anyways - I've been thinking, I've got a little more free time lately. If there is still interest I'm going to start up The Peer Project Vol.2 as another thread. Still foundational stuff, and may repeat some of what is already in here even - but I hope it will continue to help people. I'd also like to refine how everything is set up, and try to make it less work for me to reply.
Any ideas, comments?
That is great !This place will be active again .Thanks, Idiot Apathy
Sounds great! No suggestions yet, but I'll tell you if I come up with any. I'll be there!
Question about Peer Project- Will the old exercize stay here or move? Because I still have't done them all.
Question about color- I see some companies sell Warm and Cool Grey markers. What's the difference? Wouldn't the warmth depend on surrounding colors, not the grey?
That would be awesome im really interested in it.
I would like something related to understanding surfaces, so we can learn to think about them before trying to shade our drawings, like for example, thinking how much a surface would reflect its surroundings and in what way like the difference between plastic and polished metal, speculars, how light rebounds on them, texture, that kind of thing, just a suggestion, i wouldnt repeat though, because we can allways check on older threads and learn from all the posts.
Apathy: Great! I haven't come up with any exercises yet, but I think I might idea for one. Got to do a few sketches to figure out how to do it though. Glad to hear you have more free time now too.
Joe: For warm and cool grey they shift the hue to either red or blue and raise the saturation slightly so it is not perfectly grey anymore. So really they are just a low saturation medium value red/blue marker
BTW what happens when you use a warm grey in a situation that makes grey look cool? how about in warm? I think I need to do some experiments painting with warm and cool colors
[Always remember that if a topic seems uninteresting, then it's just because you are picturing a solution that lacks vigor.] - William b. Hand
-Heartbeat: great, I expect to see you there
-cup of joe: I'll make a post with the details concerning vol. 1, however rest assured this will all be here for you to complete if you'd like. I won't be free to comment on the first several that have been done several times but perhaps if you get far enough I'll try and get back in here Now warm and cool gray - I suppose it's a bit of a misnomer, once you add hue/saturation into the mix it's no longer really gray but a grayed down color. Not having used or seen markers like this in person I'm not certain to the hue they use but it is important to note that warm and cool colors consist of a lot more than blue and red, I think yellow is considered to be the warmest actually. Now in your question you mentioned simultaneous contrast - how a color will appear due to the colors around it. That's a very good thought and it's always a factor, but it's usually much more subtle than the actual paint. So, I think perhaps this may be an exercise in vol. 2, or a demo but to get you thinking, you could have a fairly saturated blue next to a very grayed down blue of the same hue and even value and the grayed down blue would appear quite a bit warmer. The opposite is true if you used a warm color. Simultaneous contrast causes a lot of other effects but I'll have to go into them another time.
-christian223: Surfaces? I think I can handle some of that, but if you're looking to get started right away check out Prometheus|ANJ's art tutorial linked on the front page of this thread. Hope to see you active in vol. 2!
-Kitsu: Hey man, thanks as always for helping out Let me know if I can help you out with that idea of yours at all. Cheers, hope to see you in vol. 2
Im giving it a shot on excersie #1, but it ant going so good. In fact it looks like total shit. Could someone be a little more precise in their ways of working with photoshop, EX: what size their work-areas are, size on brushes, and how to apply the color etc...
or give me a kick in the right direction to a total tutorial on how to work in ps. I am not familiar at all with working in it .
its quite frustrating you know...
I notice that Kitsu's diagram nicely illustrates the respective distinctions between two pairs of concepts that I've tried to disentangle elsewhere in this thread, but which people understandably still confuse:
1. Brightness (B) is not the same thing as the perceived lightness (= tone or luminance).
2. Saturation (S) is not the same thing as the strength of colour (= chroma).
1. Brightness is not tone. If you look at the bottom of Kitsu's diagram you'll see that colours ranging from white to pure red all have the same brightness (B=100), yet the white clearly is higher in tone (i.e. looks lighter) than the red.
You can see what's going on both by looking at these swatches with a magnifying glass, and by looking at their RGB values with a colour picker. The red phosphors are glowing at maximum intensity throughout the whole series, which is why B = 100 throughout - each member of the series is the brightest possible version of that colour. But the intensity of the green and blue phosphors increases from zero in pure red to the maximum in white, which is why the white is lighter in tone than the red.
(Usage of the word value is more complicated. Painters often use "value" to mean perceived lightness, i.e. tone, but in other contexts it is used as a synonym of brightness, as in Hue Saturation Value (HSV) colour space).
2. Saturation is not chroma. If you look down the right hand side of Kitsu's diagram you'll see three colours that all have the same saturation (S =100), but which differ dramatically in the strength of colour (i.e. chroma), which ranges from zero (black) to high (pure red).
Examine these colours and you'll see that in all of them it is only the red phosphors that are glowing, which is why S = 100 for all - all are pure red. What differs is the amount of glow. Think of saturation as the PURITY of the colour, not the STRENGTH of colour (which is the chroma). Am I being clear? All of these colours are at the maximum purity or saturation of red, but only F is at the maximum chroma.
Hopefully the diagram below will help to consolidate all of this. Think of it as a vertical slice into a colour solid having dimensions of hue, chroma and tone - it shows all possible variations of chroma and tone for a single hue of red:
To sum up:
Lines of uniform tone are horizontal.
Lines of uniform chroma are vertical.
Lines of uniform brightness run parallel to FZ.
Lines of uniform saturation radiate from the black point (A).
It's especially important to understand saturation as a concept clearly distinct from chroma, because shading series - sets of colours that create the illusion of a surface of one colour turning out of a light - tend to follow lines of uniform saturation (Briggsy, 2006). For anyone interested in looking into the early development of this way of thinking about colour, one of the key figures is the Harvard teacher and theorist Arthur Pope (1880-1974).
Great post Briggsy.
Now if I can trouble you as per usual haha, and as per usual as I get answers I also get questions, this is all something I'd like to have standarized before relaunching the project:
Value: Would it be appropriate to label value as a measure of light? White of course at the top of the scale and black at the bottom. A 100% Brightness and 100% Saturation each set of hues would be at different values - RGB I think would each be perhaps 1/3 of white, and CMY would be 2/3 of white. Tertiaries then would be 1/2 of white. Perhaps I am mislabeling the term value, but the concept still works right?
Brightness: This doesn't seem to be a very good measurement in terms of color, more like a place marker on the color picker to aid measurement in relation only to the square, am I right? No, perhaps this is really just a measurement of RGB? In order to have 100% Brightness, one value of RGB must be at maximum 255. I still think this is perhaps just a representational of measuring everything in this square format. What is the point of having so many different colors labeled as 100% brightness?
Saturation: I think much of what can be said of brightness simply being a handy tool to measure on a square format - and not applying too much directly to color can be said for saturation. To have 100% Saturation at least one value of RGB must be at 0. Or rather I think, neither are very efficent tools for artists perhaps?
Shading series: As per following uniform lines of saturation, we're not talking the same exact measurement of saturation are we? We're talking perhaps, same increments? If our light source is white and there are no other influences our series wouldn't change in saturation correct? But as soon as a colored lightsource enters the picture saturation pretty much has to change right? Actually, now I'm just confused @_@. Am I confusing saturation with chroma in this thinking?
interesting stuff in here. its about time that some of the artterms get a clear definiton.
I will add some of my thoughts once I got my brain cleaned up.
Very much enjoying this thread, learning quite a bit, and having to check things I think I know. I've noticed something that I think may be of value and it's more to do with terminology. That is HSB, and I blame photoshop, (until I find out who started calling HSV HSB). I'd either not noticed, or forgotten that photoshop labelled it HSB, as I tend to use RGB in photoshop, and HLS by default in most everything else.
My problem is with HSB over HSV is clearly shown with Brigsy’s examples, as Z-F or anything moving on that same 45 degree diagonal is not uniform in brightness. What is uniform is the value of red, or the hue.
I’m pretty familiar with colour cubes, but had not thought too much (or at all until now) of how hue relates to an RGB colour cube. Look at the cube on the bottom of this link;
http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/JRD/SCHOOL/mt/mt001a_2.html it also has some good bits about what you see, rods and cones, wavelengths etc.
Also for another pic and some values;
Essentially what you get with the cube is a 3d representation of all the possible combinations of RGB contained within the volume. Moving through grey scale (equal values of RGB 0 through to 1) would be a straight centre line diagonally through the cube. If you take these 2 diagonally opposing points and look to the 6 edges of the cube which do not pass through these 2 points, they form a loop of perfectly saturated hue. That is with S and V(B) set to 1 moving the hue slider would trace a path perfectly along these 6 edges. Saturation to my understanding in Photoshop HSB is adding the other 2 colours (in truth it looks to me multiplying all 3 channels and inverting the result) to bring a point on this hue path back to the centre line. The Brightness then multiplies the result to slide the position in the cube back towards black. Interesting that I find it makes more sense to call it brightness at this point, and I see photoshop’s logic now if it does solve in that order. However, the visible result does not represent what I’d think of as brightness as I’d expect full brightness to be white, which is why I like HLS as the solve order means brightness takes dominance. Or at least in my thoughts it does.
A little test that can be done is to set S and B to 1 and then make connecting vertical wedges moving through hue in steps of 10 or 20 until you get to 360, if you take a colour picker and slide along this range and look at the RGB values you will see that one of them is always at 1, and as you move along the wedges one of the other 2 colours will increase while the remaining decreases. I also find in easier to think of this as spherical, visually it makes more sense, but mathematically in RGB it’s not a linear relation. With photoshop’s HSB terminology, S and B set to 1 would put you on the equator, and adjusting H would move you around on the equator (changing longitude and keeping a fixed lattitude). Dropping S to 0 would move you to the north pole, putting B to 0 would take you to the south. Now if you want to get the the central axis which would be the greyscale path through the centre of the earth from pole to pole, you have to drop your saturation to 0, to get closer to the centre, but as you do so you’ll move towards the north pole, so you then have to use B to to get back to the south through the centre.
Hope that makes sense, with HSL H would still change your longitude, (in the same way as H in HSB) L would move you to and from the poles, and S moves you towards the central axis, maintaining the same latitude.
It’s brightness of colour not of overall luminance in photoshop, it’d make more sense to me if it was just called Value, give me HLS any day, much nicer than the push and pull of S and B (moving 2 things to make grey of the same luminance), and easier to keep consistent luminance.
Another test you can do in photoshop is to set brightness to 50% and then do progressive wedges adjusting saturation from 0 to 100% then change image mode to greyscale. I’d expect it to be 50% grey if brightness was truly fixed.
Hope that helps in clarifying some of what’s going on, it’s helped me straighten out some thoughts. Thanks.
More coming soon but I'll just deal quickly with this one:
Actually points along that line are uniform in brightness but, to repeat, brightness is not tone.Originally Posted by frumpy_bunyinMy problem is with HSB over HSV is clearly shown with Brigsy’s examples, as Z-F or anything moving on that same 45 degree diagonal is not uniform in brightness. What is uniform is the value of red, or the hue.
What does it mean to say that every point on that line is of uniform (maximum) brightness? It means that every point along that line represents the brightest possible degree of that hue at that saturation.
Z (white) is the brightest possible version of a neutral.
F (red) is the brightest possible version of saturated red.
W is the brightest possible version of a red-grey that is 60% saturated, and so on.
Z, F and W are all at 100% brightness, but no they are not the same tone. This shouldn't be a "problem" unless you are still confusing the two concepts.
No it isn't, because brightness is not tone.Originally Posted by frumpy_bunyinHowever, the visible result does not represent what I’d think of as brightness as I’d expect full brightness to be white, .....
No it won't be, because brightness is not tone.Originally Posted by frumpy_bunyinAnother test you can do in photoshop is to set brightness to 50% and then do progressive wedges adjusting saturation from 0 to 100% then change image mode to greyscale. I’d expect it to be 50% grey if brightness was truly fixed.
Firstly I should apologise, otherwise I’ll never be able to do one of Briggsy’s colour workshops! So, um, sorry.
I’ve probably made things more confusing in being use to several colour spaces. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the diagram, what it shows and the terminology is correct to exactly how photoshop is.
My problem is in the term brightness being used over value as the average person would look at pure red and say white is brighter. I assume other people also look at HSB and think brightness is odd, I don’t now if Value would make more sense to them or not.
It leaves me questioning. Does anyone use brightness in the way it is defined by photoshop in HSB outside of the computer? How does it translate onto a canvas, if something is red and you want to make it brighter, do you think that you have to desaturate it to make it brighter, or is that just a by product of making brighter?
I find it odd to have something called brightness altered by saturation, but that is the model used by photoshop.
Brightness is not tone, I hear you. I’m use to, and prefer brightness adjusting the full range black to white, not clipping with the saturation. But we’re talking about how it works in HSB, and I’m out of place.
Sorry about that.
Now, sounds to me that:
Brightness measures the strength of the RGB phosphors then?
And Saturation, measures the interference or lack thereof of the individual phosphors?
I.e. R with G and/or B at any level would lower saturation, but just R at any brightness would be 100% sat? No, it's more complicated than that - I wasn't thinking of how to think about secondaries, tertiaries and so on at 100% sat.
It seems to me that you are trying to mix all the theories into one, and you shouldnt, there are various methods to understanding images, you should keep one and thats all, but i may be wrong so...
Hmm, even if that was the case, not sure it is or isn't but - who's to say you should understand just one?
Or perhaps there may be even a greater truth past theories?
If earlier color theorists, or anyone involved in any sort of science for that matter didn't question and ask why or how, we would have no theory and no answers.
I didnt mean to not to learn all the theories, i meant that you shouldnt mix all, but keep them separate one by one, i say this because there are different ways to understanding colors depending on the context that such theory is used, we dont really need to understand all the theories to paint better, we just need to understand the one that is most usefull and fits in our category, besides, in different theories one term may mean another thing in another theory , but again i may be wrong...
Here an intersting site about color:
Sorry, don't mean to make an issue out of this or anything I'm just such a sucker for debating things haha.
Honestly, are there more color theories out there? I can see stylized color or something like that, but for the most part I think if you don't really understand the science behind true to life color that you have a greater chance of failing at stylized color. I think color theory is more universal, and perhaps - isn't theory.
I don't see us as mixing theories really, just terms and definitions - the problem is they have all been misused and mislabeled throughout time.
The reason to discuss other ideas is to compare them to the ones you already had - perhaps they don't work as well, you don't need to use them. Perhaps they work better and you can discard your older thoughts. Or perhaps they truly augment what you had already and they work even better. If it works better, then I would dare to say, you're closer to the truth.
I don't think this is what happens here. Until now I have not seen a single collected color theory that is complete. You have to combine severall colormixing theories in order to get the big picture. Your printer works with CMY but your eyes see RGB. You have to understand that RGB and CMY work together at the same time. They are not different color theories, they are only parts.Originally Posted by Christian223It seems to me that you are trying to mix all the theories into one, and you shouldnt, there are various methods to understanding images, you should keep one and thats all, but i may be wrong so...
Here is a good ron lemen quote:we just need to understand the one that is most usefull and fits in our category
What I do know though, is I can paint a colorful painting, I can paint a high contrast painting, I can paint a tonal painting, and I know I can because I understand the flexibility of how to get a result. [...] There is a formal approach to making sound decisions, once these are realized and practiced, that is when we become the Leonardo’s, the Monet’s, the Velasquez’s, and we try to break the conventions to find something else, if that is in us to do so. SO many people are content just doing, with a theory in mind so they don’t have to think anymore. Does Kinkade come to mind when thinking this??? Hmmmmmm