[Lunatique]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and experiementing. I can't make up my mind.

I've become concerned about my paintings' values not reading well when I start and finish in color, so I've tried doing a full monochromatic version, and then start coloring it with a color layer(the same technique used when I sometimes color Steven's stuff when he posts b/w pieces).

The problem is, sometimes, a piece's original inspiration might actually be a certain atmosphere from colors in the first place.

So, my questions is, do you guys think doing a monochromatic version and then coloring would hurt the piece?

[nova]

"value is more important than hue" - some artist that told me so

i don't think it would hurt it, it would make it a better composition overall. of course, that depends on the image. if you're looking for a certain mood, try it with values rather than colors first. besides, values can always translate into colors.

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: nova ]

[Sumaleth]

I've seen some truly amazing pics made each way, so I don't think there's a clear answer to this question. Whichever approach you feel most comfortable with.

Row.

[mythwarden]

Lunatique,

More often then not I paint in black and white. Then add color over the top through various overlays and color layers.

I do this for speed more then any other reason. I also do it to be sure my values are correct.

The critical part is making sure your values match up with the correct colors...otherwise you end up getting muddy look.

Here's an example...

[mythwarden]

To be honest, if I have the time...I would much prefer to paint it in color from the start.

A good way to practice adding color this way is to turn another artist's painting into black and white then try to add color over the top matching his original picture.

You learn a lot about color this way.

[pierre]

my two cents...

This has been one of my big frustrations in life, how to really define their properties in relation to each other, hue and value. While I could spend, and certainly will, my whole life in trying to come up with a good explanation that will suit my needs, the best one I have so far is: this is just how things are. We are physically built in a certain way that we perceive the world in a certain way (I have totally left out the psychological side of things).

I think our fundamental approach of breaking down a problem into several steps is one analogy of importance when it comes to dividing colors into hue and value.

Practically always, the tools we have at hand to render our reality, is a tool of translation. The range of steps of your "ivory black" to your "gesso white" is much less than that your eyes take in from observing real life (you can paint the core of the sun in pure white, but that doesn't mean that white emits the same amount of energy as the core of the sun, it can give an illusion of that though). We need to translate and break down real values into equivalents that will fit our range of colors- so that we can give the desired illusion. That goes for breaking down hue and value also, they need to be divided in a certain way to translate well together.

Inorder to, I think, succed in dividing hue and value and fusing them together, one need to know how they will interact together. One can't just look at the value alone and render it and then add color, one have to look at the hue of it too. Magenta for instance has a certain value "living inside" of it, that doesn't mean one can go and render that value in gray and add some cold red to it, in fact if it was pure magenta, you shouldn't add any greyish value to it, taken you want to keep maximal saturation. I will give you and extreme example. Say you want your painting to have only ONE color, pure bright yellow. Ok, so say you want to divide hue and value in that one, how much value would you actually put in?

mythwarden, it is a nice painting, but it is pretty much only a tinted monochromatic drawing/painting. Maybe that is what you are after though, I am not sure. Maybe trying to keep it more high contrast from the beginning, to leave som free playground for colors?

Look at Drew Struzan, his technique is a prime example of how to really succeed in dividing value and hue. I think one secret of his brilliant color work is that his value underdrawing, takes into consideration what color it will support. He know what END RESULT he wants to achieve, instead of just accepting whatever happens on his board That way he can avoid smudging down his painting in a grey bleeding, especially in areas where there will be a high saturation in the colors. Craig said of his underdrawings as "high contrast" drawings where the "upper middle tones" were submitted. It is almost the same ways GCR and UCR color printing works: while the latter adds black only where three of the primaries are needed, the former goes further and uses, in custom percentage, only secondary color blending plus black to make for a complete printing. Some color systems work in the exact same way.

Therefor (taken we working primarily with transparent colors, or will blend optically in any way), to successfully manage to translate an idea or any kind of image to maximal pureness in colors by division of value and hue, one must have a clear mental image in the head before the painting process. And one must take into account the value created by the primaries together rather than the value that also lives inside a color alone.

but that is just what i think...

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: pierre ]

[Frost]

Pierre: Hello sir, nice to see you again. Best to nail both value and color simultaneously imho, though harder because color distracts us from the lighting job. I've done a few pics from b&w which turned out alright, but as a personal challenge I try to nail those colors and values at the same time as much as possible (good training and saves time in the end). The problem is when adding color, you'll change the dynamics of the lighting and values anyway, so is it really worth putting all that effort into making precise values that won't remain that way once colored?

Mythwarden: That's a nice pic, though perhaps a little monochromatic in the end, which refers to a point I made above.

[pierre]

Frost, fully agree with you on nailing them both at the same time, my preference of working, feel that is the most natural way to go about the artwork. I actually see it as a challenge dividing them, but not so much working with them together.

[Lunatique]

What if you do a color rough first, working out all the dynamics regarding colors and basic values, and then do a full b/w rendering using the color rough as a guide, and then apply detailed colors last?

One thing I've noticed when I colored Steven's stuff int he past was that sometimes, I wanted a saturated color in a bright area, but the actual value in that area is so close to white that I can't get any significant amount of color in at all in the color layer. That would be the most obvious danger to me when working from fully rendered b/w and then add a color layer.

Even though I've tried the b/w to color method a few times, I've never actually liked it enough to actually finish a painting that way. All the paintings that ends up on my website were all done from begining to end in color. I think maybe it's because working in b/w when you have a clear color image in your head is pretty frustating. Almost feels like you have one hand tied behind your back.

[mythwarden]

The painting had been done intentionally in monochrome. It's an underwater scene in the moonlight.

It’s the overall image that counts, Lun. You should paint whatever way makes you comfortable.


Pierre said:
""Magenta for instance has a certain value "living inside" of it, that doesn't mean one can go and render that value in gray and add some cold red to it, in fact if it was pure magenta, you shouldn't add any grayish value to it, taken you want to keep maximal saturation. ""

I think Pierre is thinking in terms of traditional painting, in which he would be correct. In digital painting however, it doesn't have to work that way. Take a picture with magenta and turn it to black and white...
It has its value in gray, right?

In Photoshop, you'll see two boxes that are stacked in the right hand side of your Color Picker. The bottom one represents your original value and hue. Now try to grab a magenta color to match it... the critical part is making sure the magenta balances out with that bottom box...You shouldn't see a sharp edge between the two boxes. If you do, then you’re using the wrong color (Example:Magenta) for that value.

If you get used to painting this way, you get used to what values match the correct colors you want. It sounds more complicated right? It is, but when you get used to it...your work will speed up 10 fold. I could choose a ton of colors to add by using this path. I just don't, this may change in the near future.

It's almost like working backwards. Your training your mind to see value for what it is. Then your adding color that would match it while still keeping consistent to the image in your mind. The color isn't randomly added as suggested.

For your near white part you spoke of. Use the color picker in this same way. You'll find a color that matches the intensity of that white.

In the long haul, I would never suggest this is a better way to paint. It's just another way of going about it digitally.

If you doubt this path, then take any artists painting and turn it to black and white. If you can honestly say that you can’t reproduce the original color, then post it here and I’ll show you how to work your way up from black and white with it.

Make sure you post the original color that it had too if that is what your after.

-myth

[Lunatique]

Actually, I've tried it with a Bouguereau painting. The result was looking pretty cool(I only did a small section of a painting), until I compared it to the original. But then again, it's BOUGUEREAU we're talking about here.

So far, the best solution I've found is to get your problem solving done during the color rough stage. At that stage, nothing is concrete, so you feel more free to experiement. You can turn the piece into b/w to check your values, and then go back and alter it in color and check the value again. Maybe I'll just keep doing that from now on.

[Frog]

Just curious myth as to why you find it quicker to lay down the tonal values in grayscale and then apply the colour? to my mind that sounds slower than working in colour from the start. Is it really that hard to keep track of tonal values when working in colour from the off? Or is it to control your final colour scheme more precisely that you leave it till last?

Personally I think that colour is so fundamental that I like to be thinking about it right from the beginning, but then again I'm sure everyone will have their own take and their own methods.

[Steven Stahlberg]

I definitely prefer splitting it up, depending on a few things:

If it's to be a realistic image, with lots of different colors and shading (for instance not moonlight or firelight but daylight)...

And - very important - if I don't have any references.
Trying to 'home in' on the proper anatomy without reference, and trying to put down color and vaue at the same time, is like trying to ride a bicycle while juggling, for me anyway.
Adding the color later isn't a problem, it also sometimes helps me discover different directions I can take it in.

[mythwarden]

I've attempted approaching your reply a couple times now but find myself questioning your point, so I'm unsure of how to correctly respond. Don't be offended my friend because it is all in search of an understanding...

With that said:

I'm a traditional oil painter firstly, so I know most of what you speak of already. The thing...it doesn't all apply to digital art.

Let me try to get something clear that I think is being misunderstood right now.

You said:
""Magenta for instance has a certain value "living inside" of it, that doesn't mean one can go and render that value in gray and add some cold red to it, in fact if it was pure magenta, you shouldn't add any grayish value to it, taken you want to keep maximal saturation. ""

When you paint in black and white...digitally, your painting with light. So no, you wouldn't add "cold red" to the gray...you would add the exact color..."Cold Magenta" to the gray.

I'm under the impression that your making it more complex then what it is.

If you add no gray, as your suggesting then you would have "nothing" because there will be no dark to catch the magenta's light. Remember that it is RGB we're dealing with.

If you take "True" magenta's hue and change it to black and white, you'll have its value in gray. To go reverse...you add that same hue back.

It isn't anymore complex then this. Does this make sense? Maybe you understood this already and just miss-wrote your explanation. You seem like you know what your talking about, so I'm to assume there is more to this then what your saying.

You said:
"" In the digital realm anything is possible, you don't have any media buildup as you have in the traditional medium, you can pretty much do anything you want with your image, the only thing stopping you is your imagination and raw computer power.""

This is common misperception by traditional artist. If imagination and raw computer power were all it took to get a good digital painting...then most people should switch to digital art and become instant masters.

You have to know your basics...just because the medium changes, that doesn't mean the knowledge to create the finished piece changes. They are one and the same in many ways. You just take different paths to get end results sometimes. (Hence the optional path of Black and White)

You said:
"So you have a gray image, don't worry, just go into the color darkroom in Photoshop and turn it into pure magenta". But that is not really painting is it.""

No? So when we're painting color over the top of something black and white through the method of "light"...this isn't painting? Because that has been what I've been talking about all along.

I explained how to find the correct hue for the correct value in my previous reply.

Likely if I have to counter another post...I'll just go straight to point with images. Since that usually is the simplest way to make a point.

Pierre, I'm not trying to belittle your traditional point of view, I'm just trying educating the people on a medium that has limited education for it since it's so new.

There is no loss in working from black and white up.

If I misread anything you've said then I apologize. Perhaps if you can show me digitally through images yourself what you mean, that way I can understand what it is that your saying better...and vice-versa.

-myth

[mythwarden]

Frog,

I'm sorry, I didn't see your post.

I don't want to give the impression that I work this way all the time...but the reasons for why I do it are simple.

Less to worry about when it comes to content. I get to focus solely on the composition and values.

Color can be added very easily and as dynamically as you wish later once you have what you want. It doesn't have to be monochromatic...you can add as much color as you wish.

Don't get me wrong, I often will flatten the layers at the end and do final touches in plain color. Though it isn't really necessary.

I don't limit myself to just one path per painting. You do everything you feel necessary to get from point A. Your Mind - to - B. The Finished Piece.

You have no limits to what you can create and how so; so don't try to teach yourself any. Be as experimental and as creative as you like. ;-)

-myth

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: mythwarden ]

[Jason Manley]

rembrandt worked from monochromatic starts...then moved into temperature seperation by glazing and adding grays to the lights so that the earthy underdrawing made the shadows warm...once he got his color separation he glazed and scumbled his way into more color...the brightest brights are often the last thing painted.

tis just a way of working.

I do both.

you could start the traditional way and do a value study quickly...then do your color study...and finally do your finished piece when you have it all together.

best of luck....nice topic guys.

j

[pierre]

Mythwarden said:
"I think Pierre is thinking in terms of traditional painting, in which he would be correct. In digital painting however, it doesn't have to work that way. Take a picture with magenta and turn it to black and white...
It has its value in gray, right?"

You just repeated what I said in my previous post, that magenta has a value living inside of it, my discussion dealt with how to go about creating it with a value and hue division.

I like to think of it in traditional painting techniques, because that is how I draw and paint mainly. But also because it creates a kind of dicipline i how to approach your work.

In the digital realm anything is possible, you don't have any media buildup as you have in the traditional medium, you can pretty much do anything you want with your image, the only thing stopping you is your imagination and raw computer power. "So you have a grey image, don't worry, just go into the color darkroom in photoshop and turn it into pure magenta". But that is not really painting is it.

So that is why I wonder, if the whole process is in digital, why dividing it in the first place, in the final painting that is (preliminary work most often needs color and value studies). As I see it, you are really only breaking down the image you have in the first place, and then fusing it together and hope it fits as you imagined. Is it because you want to be sure of your values? there are ways to check the value in your software while working on hue and value together. You can just do a simple check with an adjustment layer.

I sketch in b&w as much as I do in color, maybe more b&w. I think in a sense we all start out monochromatic, pure drafting and drawing does not depend on color. I need my b&w studies to sometimes isolate a value study of a certain image, just as I need color keys to give me a hint and mood of color, but I would never divide value and color in the process of making the final, as I see I don't need it. In preliminary work, it serves a great purpose.

You can achieve a certain depth with b&w, in fact no other dimension in range of colors speaking explains form as good as the values ranging from black and white, they are totally harmonius with each other, but that doesn't mean you can't explain form with harmonius colors ranging from blue to white, red to white etc, just not that good as in b&w. however, only b&w exclude the dimension of color in an image, that is nonetheless very important for the total impression and in many cases (for me all cases) the color plays such an important and role that I have to have it along in the whole of the process inorder to by comparison achieve the maximal effect I am after. As I see it, some color effects are so subtle and sensitive that I can only achieve them by not dividing, but that's just me.

As someone posted earlier, we all have our preference of working, and while some like to divide others don't. An early old master technique followed that strikt formula of doing a grisaille and glazing over that with transparent bright colors, the plen air painter totally made the final transition to pure opaque colors with the right color blending (sometimes unblended) in the right place, ala prima. None is right or wrong and great masterpieces have been created in both ways.

[pierre]

Don't worry mythwarden, I am never offended by an interesting discussion.

Things tend to get repeated one time to many when people tend to talk past eachother.

Further more, there is good literature about these subjects and I am not trying to come up with new revolutionary ideas, just correct some misunderstanding between us with this post.

you said:
"This is common misperception by traditional artist. If imagination and raw computer power were all it took to get a good digital painting...then most people should switch to digital art and become instant masters."

I can't seem to recall that I implied that a computer would turn anyone into an instant master. My post, read in its proper context, again, dealt with value and hue division and the ability to have an unlimited control over that, as opposed to the control you have with traditional medias.

you said:
"When you paint in black and white...digitally, your painting with light. So no, you wouldn't add "cold red" to the gray...you would add the exact color..."Cold Magenta" to the gray."

---

"If you add no gray, as your suggesting then you would have "nothing" because there will be no dark to catch the magenta's light. Remember that it is RGB we're dealing with."

As you have probably understood, i hope, while you are explaining matching a certain color to its value in grey I was talking about division of the two entities, fusing them, but still having the two entities visible. That is the fusion of them creating the final. Depending on media, both ways can be used. Further more, I am not sure what you mean by "digitally, your painting with light." I think the most common settings in Photoshop is to simulate a subtractive process as opposed to an additive. You are subtracting light. I think most people paint in that setting.

you said:
"If you add no gray, as your suggesting then you would have "nothing" because there will be no dark to catch the magenta's light. Remember that it is RGB we're dealing with.

If you take "True" magenta's hue and change it to black and white, you'll have its value in gray. To go reverse...you add that same hue back."

Did I limit my theory to RGB? or an additive approach if I understand you correctly? Further more, your argument is not only supported by RGB (I generally try to use names of color systems sparingly since that can be confusing, I much more like to refer to them as additive and subtractive blending) Once again, that is an argument that doesn't touch mine. I am not talking about intensity translations, but instead divisions. Two different things.

you said:
"No? So when we're painting color over the top of something black and white through the method of "light"...this isn't painting? Because that has been what I've been talking about all along."

If that is what you thought I meant, then I really executed the bulk of the great masters of art. If you read carefully you would understand that the black and wite is painting, yes, simply tinting it in a monochromatic color is not, at least not for me. Some would probably define that as painting, fine with me.

you said:
"Pierre, I'm not trying to belittle your traditional point of view, I'm just trying educating the people on a medium that has limited education for it since it's so new."

I for one am not trying to educate, but hopefully just share with others the modest knowledge I have, if that serves an educating purpose in some how, fine with me, but I think I have more to take in from others than actually learn out. I have learned alot from you, though I find us talking about two different things most of the time.

you said:
"There is no loss in working from black and white up."

There certainly is not, if used wisely, following a plan. But again, we all have our own favorite ways of working and if you feel that suits you, then do it, what might work for one person does not necessarily work for another.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: pierre ]

[mythwarden]

This whole thing has been turned upside down.

I'm going have to make my point tonight in images for people to understand what this is all about.

It's very simple. Whatever you've seen in color regardless of the medium...you can simulate from black and white when working digitally. You won't tell the difference.

The tutorial I do will solidify the entire point of this post.

Pierre,
I disagree with what you said. But then again, that is why we are here. To learn, and yes my friend, I learn from you too.

-myth

[mythwarden]

This was done within a few hours of me being home tonight.

I didn't work on cloths or hair. But I think you get the idea.

No automated coloring, at the same time...it's not all that complex is it?

This is just one path to creating digital paintings -- A simple one.

Thanks for the great discussion and great artist to reference from Pierre. I knew I had heard his name before but couldn�t put a picture to him. After seeing his work I realized he surrounded me with his awesome talent my whole life. E.T�Indiana Jones�Star Wars�

�awesome. ;-)

(Here�s the example - 292k loading)

[Anthony]

I'm not by any means on an advanced level here, but I find it helpful to do a solid BW drawing of a scene to pick out the shadows, then work up and down in value and color from there. Mainly helps me define the shadows, which I know some people have a tendency to underappreciate(and makes it easier to pick values later).

[pierre]

Good that you posted the demo. Yes, it is one path, among many(I believe unlimited), in making a painting. It is always giving to learn about ways, other than your own, in creating artwork. I knew what you were meaning though in your earlier posts, just didn't figure out why, still can't in many ways, but nevertheless it is a path, and I admire how many ways there can be to solve a problem. If it serves your purpose, then, as I see it, it is correct. Personally, I would never create a final painting (preliminary sketches not included) that way, since I like my "brush" to be loaded with the whole package in one stroke, from the beginning. Define it as partly psychlogical and partly a derivation from a technical aspect. But mostly I think it is an effect of me loving the traditional way of working. My mom bought me my first oil paints when I was 7 and 15 years of oil painting will do that to you. As much as anyone can tell you to do it this way and that way, you will always hear that voice inside of you saying "I like it better my way" (Andrew Loomis).

Thank you too for the nice discussion, I learned alot. Sometimes the parts have to agree about disagreeing. I am there. I hope you are too.

Pierre

P.S. Yeah, Drew Struzan is truly an amazing artist. I can honestly say that Indiana Jones would not be the same without him, how weird it can sound.

[mythwarden]

Well said Pierre. Thanks again, I actually learned a bit from this post.

-myth

[mythwarden]

Jason,

Nah...Not fighting anything buddy. Just covering something that is old as can be, but not implemented in techniques in Photoshop as much yet. At least not from anything I've seen out there yet. Not in the ways I spoke of anyway. But it can be done many, many ways so it matters not.

When Pierre brought up Drew "knowing his end result" That implied to me that he thought I didn't. From there it became a complex flurry of details revolving around color division and such.

I know what I'm doing and what my picture will look like once colored while working in black and white so I felt his comment was complicating something way to much.

You can learn all the magic you want in art school, but keep it simple and don't make something into more then what it is.

Point made in the demonstration.

I did take some of Pierre's comments wrong, but then again it's easy too when using this form of communication. I'm glad he didn't hold that against me. He’s a nice guy and an intelligent one too. ;-)

[Jason Manley]

funny that the argument seems to be whether working up from a GRASAILLE is worthy of being a way of painting. hehe

check out rubens...rembrandt...early velasquez...you name it...all use this technique.

either from black and white...then with a burnt sienna wash...then lift out of lights...then opaque painting in the light to seperate temperatures for the light and dark...then adding the gray back into the darks as a cool reflect light if needed....finally hitting and scumbling in some fresh clean saturated color for accents.

I work that way often...Id post some demo stuff as well but Im in a rather complicated NDA with my company.

keep up the good work...glad to see you boys and girls are still breathing and fighting ART.

j

[zaar]

Hello there! This discussion is really interesting. Here are some of my reflections on the subject:
How about doing the opposite; laying down hue and then manipulate its value with a layer on top of it? To me it seems like the mind (or at least mine) does not work that way. Structure and form comes first then value and then hue/color, am I right? Therefore even when one is painting directly or ala prima, one thinks in this order even though it might be on a more or less subconscious level. Working in two steps (value then color) seems like a safer way to go, but personally I think its more fun to lay down both value and color at once, even tough the risk of messing everything up might be higher.

Am I totally off here or does anyone agree?

BTW I remember something about the male and female working differently when it comes to stuff like this. Something about the male brain being more focused on structure and value and that the female is more focused on color. Is this right, does anyone here know anything about this?
And as we all know we�ve got two different types of cells in the eye: rods and cones. Rods register value and cones register color (right?). Some artists have been said to have more and/or extra sensitive rods. I�ve read that Zorn for example had this.

Oh well that�s all I had to say�